Make a U-Turn Now: NLRB Re-Writes Independent Contractor Test

Monday, January 28, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned yet another Obama-era precedent—the 2014 FedEx Home Delivery decision, which had severely limited the definition of an independent contractor under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In its new decision issued January 25, 2019, SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., the NLRB reversed course and expanded this classification, placing particular emphasis on a worker's "entrepreneurial opportunity" for financial gain. This decision empowers businesses—particularly those operating in what has become known as the "gig economy"—to classify more workers as independent contractors, rendering them ineligible to unionize or access the protections of the NLRA.

SuperShuttle DFW examined drivers who provide ride-sharing services to and from the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport through SuperShuttle. The Amalgamated Transit Union sought to represent those drivers, and SuperShuttle resisted, arguing that the drivers were independent contractors and not employees.

The NLRB agreed and laid out the 10 common-law factors that determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee:

The extent of control which, by the agreement, the alleged employer may exercise over the details of the work;

Whether the individual is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;

The kind of occupation, referencing whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of an employer or by a specialist without supervision;

The skill required in the particular occupation;

Whether the alleged employer or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work;

The length of time for which the individual is engaged;

The method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;

Whether the work is part of the regular business of the alleged employer;

Whether the parties believe they are creating an employment relationship; and

Whether the individual is or is not in business.

The NLRB then reasoned that "entrepreneurial opportunity, like employer control, is a key principle in evaluating the overall effect of the common-law factors on a putative contractor's independence to pursue economic gain." Thus, "entrepreneurial opportunity" necessarily overlays the entire analysis. In so holding, the NLRB criticized its FedEx opinion, finding that its analysis severely undervalued the importance of "entrepreneurial opportunity."

With this new test in mind, the NLRB turned to the facts of SuperShuttle's business. It noted that the SuperShuttle DFW drivers set their own schedules, selected their routes, and owned their vans. As such, the NLRB determined this general lack of supervision and existence of driver control meant that drivers were independent contractors, not employees.

Jessica Federico is dedicated to providing advice to employers who are navigating the challenging and ever-changing landscape of employment law. She counsels employers on defense of discrimination claims, wage and hour disputes, employee termination, internal I-9 audits, and filing petitions for employment-based immigrant and non-immigrant visas.

Prior to law school Jessica worked for several legal services providers in the Twin Cities, assisting immigrants in removal of defense, family based immigration, and humanitarian relief.

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.